Conquer Club

warmonger1981 wrote:Please let get this topic back on track. Here comes Bernie derailing the thread again. This is about Nice not Nazi's. So please keep on track. I've been reprimanded for not keeping on track so please do the same. In the name if love and tolerance with understanding can we keep this utmost important topic on track. So with respect for the dead please keep this on topic.

Lookie here, warmonger now wants to respect the thread.

betiko wrote:he wasn't that much of a lonewolf, he planned it with 3 or 4 of his long time friends. He had been looking at articles regarding people driving into crowds intentionally since a while from what they saw on his phone, some friends provided the gun, they went to rent the truck with him... they told him to fill the truck with heavy stuff and to remove the breaks, and that they will have fun watching him do it.

That's pretty fucked up. Killing them just isn't enough. They should bring back torture for crimes like that.

Yeah. After you coming in and jumping the bandwagon on shutting me up. You should take your own advice you hippocritical Commie. So please take your own advice and stop being a two faced hippocritical old man. So now back to the featured presentation.

warmonger1981 wrote:Yeah. After you coming in and jumping the bandwagon on shutting me up. You should take your own advice you hippocritical Commie. So please take your own advice and stop being a two faced hippocritical old man. So now back to the featured presentation.

You called me a COMMIE? Oh my....are you butt hurt?

Handing you a cyber-tissue for those streaming tears.

Dukasaur wrote:

betiko wrote:he wasn't that much of a lonewolf, he planned it with 3 or 4 of his long time friends. He had been looking at articles regarding people driving into crowds intentionally since a while from what they saw on his phone, some friends provided the gun, they went to rent the truck with him... they told him to fill the truck with heavy stuff and to remove the breaks, and that they will have fun watching him do it.

That's pretty fucked up. Killing them just isn't enough. They should bring back torture for crimes like that.

"Bring back'? What makes you think it ever left?

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

betiko wrote:he wasn't that much of a lonewolf, he planned it with 3 or 4 of his long time friends. He had been looking at articles regarding people driving into crowds intentionally since a while from what they saw on his phone, some friends provided the gun, they went to rent the truck with him... they told him to fill the truck with heavy stuff and to remove the breaks, and that they will have fun watching him do it.

That's pretty fucked up. Killing them just isn't enough. They should bring back torture for crimes like that.

"Bring back'? What makes you think it ever left?

To be specific, I meant "bring back torture as a legally-sanctioned form of punishment for appropriately heinous crimes that one has been duly convicted of in a proper trial."

I understand that torture is used extra-legally by intelligence agencies and military forces to extract information, that it is used by dictators to exact revenge on their enemies, and by sexual sadists to derive excitement from. None of those meanings were the one I meant.

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

betiko wrote:he wasn't that much of a lonewolf, he planned it with 3 or 4 of his long time friends. He had been looking at articles regarding people driving into crowds intentionally since a while from what they saw on his phone, some friends provided the gun, they went to rent the truck with him... they told him to fill the truck with heavy stuff and to remove the breaks, and that they will have fun watching him do it.

That's pretty fucked up. Killing them just isn't enough. They should bring back torture for crimes like that.

"Bring back'? What makes you think it ever left?

To be specific, I meant "bring back torture as a legally-sanctioned form of punishment for appropriately heinous crimes that one has been duly convicted of in a proper trial."

I understand that torture is used extra-legally by intelligence agencies and military forces to extract information, that it is used by dictators to exact revenge on their enemies, and by sexual sadists to derive excitement from. None of those meanings were the one I meant.

Does "extra-legally" mean legally, or illegally? You're a bit vague on that, mate. All I can get from your post is that you want torture to be legal.

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

betiko wrote:he wasn't that much of a lonewolf, he planned it with 3 or 4 of his long time friends. He had been looking at articles regarding people driving into crowds intentionally since a while from what they saw on his phone, some friends provided the gun, they went to rent the truck with him... they told him to fill the truck with heavy stuff and to remove the breaks, and that they will have fun watching him do it.

That's pretty fucked up. Killing them just isn't enough. They should bring back torture for crimes like that.

"Bring back'? What makes you think it ever left?

To be specific, I meant "bring back torture as a legally-sanctioned form of punishment for appropriately heinous crimes that one has been duly convicted of in a proper trial."

I understand that torture is used extra-legally by intelligence agencies and military forces to extract information, that it is used by dictators to exact revenge on their enemies, and by sexual sadists to derive excitement from. None of those meanings were the one I meant.

Does "extra-legally" mean legally, or illegally? You're a bit vague on that, mate. All I can get from your post is that you want torture to be legal.

Am I not speaking English? The prefix "extra" normally means "outside of" so I think most people would understand that an extralegal action is one conducted outside of a legal framework.

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

betiko wrote:he wasn't that much of a lonewolf, he planned it with 3 or 4 of his long time friends. He had been looking at articles regarding people driving into crowds intentionally since a while from what they saw on his phone, some friends provided the gun, they went to rent the truck with him... they told him to fill the truck with heavy stuff and to remove the breaks, and that they will have fun watching him do it.

That's pretty fucked up. Killing them just isn't enough. They should bring back torture for crimes like that.

"Bring back'? What makes you think it ever left?

To be specific, I meant "bring back torture as a legally-sanctioned form of punishment for appropriately heinous crimes that one has been duly convicted of in a proper trial."

I understand that torture is used extra-legally by intelligence agencies and military forces to extract information, that it is used by dictators to exact revenge on their enemies, and by sexual sadists to derive excitement from. None of those meanings were the one I meant.

Does "extra-legally" mean legally, or illegally? You're a bit vague on that, mate. All I can get from your post is that you want torture to be legal.

Am I not speaking English? The prefix "extra" normally means "outside of" so I think most people would understand that an extralegal action is one conducted outside of a legal framework.

You're speaking the tedious legalese that avoids taking a stance. To be fair, nobody here could have expected anything better from you.

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
Does "extra-legally" mean legally, or illegally? You're a bit vague on that, mate. All I can get from your post is that you want torture to be legal.

Am I not speaking English? The prefix "extra" normally means "outside of" so I think most people would understand that an extralegal action is one conducted outside of a legal framework.

You're speaking the tedious legalese that avoids taking a stance. To be fair, nobody here could have expected anything better from you.

No, I'm speaking perfectly plain English. I'm sorry, I was under the impression that English was a language you were comfortable with.

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
Does "extra-legally" mean legally, or illegally? You're a bit vague on that, mate. All I can get from your post is that you want torture to be legal.

Am I not speaking English? The prefix "extra" normally means "outside of" so I think most people would understand that an extralegal action is one conducted outside of a legal framework.

You're speaking the tedious legalese that avoids taking a stance. To be fair, nobody here could have expected anything better from you.

No, I'm speaking perfectly plain English. I'm sorry, I was under the impression that English was a language you were comfortable with.

Oh dear, you had to edit out all the stuff I took issue with. Own up to your mistakes, dude.

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
Does "extra-legally" mean legally, or illegally? You're a bit vague on that, mate. All I can get from your post is that you want torture to be legal.

Am I not speaking English? The prefix "extra" normally means "outside of" so I think most people would understand that an extralegal action is one conducted outside of a legal framework.

You're speaking the tedious legalese that avoids taking a stance. To be fair, nobody here could have expected anything better from you.

No, I'm speaking perfectly plain English. I'm sorry, I was under the impression that English was a language you were comfortable with.

Oh dear, you had to edit out all the stuff I took issue with. Own up to your mistakes, dude.

Perhaps you should explain what you took issue with. It seems you were disputing my use of a word you didn't know.

Dukasaur wrote:Perhaps you should explain what you took issue with. It seems you were disputing my use of a word you didn't know.

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

betiko wrote:he wasn't that much of a lonewolf, he planned it with 3 or 4 of his long time friends. He had been looking at articles regarding people driving into crowds intentionally since a while from what they saw on his phone, some friends provided the gun, they went to rent the truck with him... they told him to fill the truck with heavy stuff and to remove the breaks, and that they will have fun watching him do it.

That's pretty fucked up. Killing them just isn't enough. They should bring back torture for crimes like that.

"Bring back'? What makes you think it ever left?

To be specific, I meant "bring back torture as a legally-sanctioned form of punishment for appropriately heinous crimes that one has been duly convicted of in a proper trial."

I understand that torture is used extra-legally by intelligence agencies and military forces to extract information, that it is used by dictators to exact revenge on their enemies, and by sexual sadists to derive excitement from. None of those meanings were the one I meant.

Does "extra-legally" mean legally, or illegally? You're a bit vague on that, mate. All I can get from your post is that you want torture to be legal.

Hopefully, we're back on topic now- I'm kinda wary of people who side with ISIS.

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Perhaps you should explain what you took issue with. It seems you were disputing my use of a word you didn't know.

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

betiko wrote:he wasn't that much of a lonewolf, he planned it with 3 or 4 of his long time friends. He had been looking at articles regarding people driving into crowds intentionally since a while from what they saw on his phone, some friends provided the gun, they went to rent the truck with him... they told him to fill the truck with heavy stuff and to remove the breaks, and that they will have fun watching him do it.

That's pretty fucked up. Killing them just isn't enough. They should bring back torture for crimes like that.

"Bring back'? What makes you think it ever left?

To be specific, I meant "bring back torture as a legally-sanctioned form of punishment for appropriately heinous crimes that one has been duly convicted of in a proper trial."

I understand that torture is used extra-legally by intelligence agencies and military forces to extract information, that it is used by dictators to exact revenge on their enemies, and by sexual sadists to derive excitement from. None of those meanings were the one I meant.

Does "extra-legally" mean legally, or illegally? You're a bit vague on that, mate. All I can get from your post is that you want torture to be legal.

Okay, so we're back where we started. You're asking what extra-legally means, a question I already answered. Is there another question you've been meaning to ask?

Extra-legally pretty obviously meant dispite the laws against doing it. So you really should not have bothered engaging in that exchange Duke. If someone is going to just pretend you were being vague, they are likely going to move the target every time you shoot.

Google is your friend, Sym. Now quit trolling Duk.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extralegal

That bitch is extralegal.

2dimes wrote:Extra-legally pretty obviously meant dispite the laws against doing it. So you really should not have bothered engaging in that exchange Duke. If someone is going to just pretend you were being vague, they are likely going to move the target every time you shoot.

I think you mean "despite", and patches has just posted a definition that is counter to your own. In fact, all you seem to agree on is that asking for a definition is trolling.

Funny that.

2dimes wrote:Extra-legally pretty obviously meant dispite the laws against doing it.

TheFreeDictionary.com, courtesy of patches70 wrote:1. Not permitted by law.
2. Outside of the scope of law.

Symmetry wrote:...and patches has just posted a definition that is counter to your own

What is wrong with your reading comprehension? You ARE trolling, so shut the fuck up.

Serbia wrote:

2dimes wrote:Extra-legally pretty obviously meant dispite the laws against doing it.

TheFreeDictionary.com, courtesy of patches70 wrote:1. Not permitted by law.
2. Outside of the scope of law.

Symmetry wrote:...and patches has just posted a definition that is counter to your own

What is wrong with your reading comprehension? You ARE trolling, so shut the fuck up.

Apparently, I'm reading two definitions posted by patches, and your "obvious" definition. Which definition do you agree with?

You really need to work on your reading skills here, Serbia. You're making a huge deal out of me asking for a definition, but you're posting multiple contradictory answers.

I think I can simplify this for you. Of the various definitions you've posted and quoted, which of them are incorrect?

Maybe you can find one that suits you this time.

Extralegal just means doing something outside the scope of law. If something is against the law and you do it, it is not "extralegal", it is just plain illegal.
Extralegal is like the bombing of US citizens on foreign soil using drone warfare. The legality of it hasn't really been taken up by the courts except by secret courts and that sure as shit doesn't count because no other courts can use the secret courts' decisions as precedent or make rulings based on the secret court rulings, thus the extralegality. The torturing of prisoners held by US forces on foreign territory was extralegal and still might be. I can't recall exactly, but I thought Congress passed a law about torturing at Black Sites but I dunno. The CIA tortures people in a prison in Saudi Arabia and they won't be charged with any US laws, because there are no laws dealing with that. Or have Saudi's torture prisoners for them, no US law can touch them, thus extralegal. Yada yada yada.

You can also use extralegal in an instance where someone does something and someone else says "Hey! You can't do that, the law doesn't say you can do that!" and the reply being "Well, the law doesn't say I can't do it either", thus extralegal.
New designer drugs come out all the time. They aren't included on the schedule of drugs list and thus can be "legally" sold. Not because they are legal but because they are extralegal, that the law hasn't caught up to decide on the issue.
Extralegal can also apply to vague laws. For instance, cruel or inhumane treatment of prisoners is generally illegal but rarely defined. Thus, you get the arguments such as "waterboarding isn't torture" until someone law is specifically written stating that waterboarding is torture. Until that happens it's extralegal. It's a gray area so to speak.

I think what Duk is saying is that he doesn't mind the extralegal torturing of certain individuals who carry out terrible crimes. Not for information I read but for the purposes of punishment. Simple executing them not being good enough, or so I take it from Duk's post.
For example, had the Nice killer been captured alive he'd have zero problem with the prisoner transferred to American custody, have him flown out to the middle of Iraq at a secret CIA black site and tortured to death. Have the dead body delivered back to France to have everyone spit on it or something.
If someone in France brings up the issue "Uhh, the death penalty is illegal not to mention torture is illegal under French law" the authorities can claim "sure, but we didn't torture him and we didn't execute him". Thus, extralegal.

None of them are my definitions - are you once again confusing authors? You are making a habit of that lately, to bad results on your part.

And I'm not doing shit for you. You tell me, which of those three definitions are contradictory? Anything short of that will earn you another dismissive "shut the fuck up". All you do is troll. Every fucking question you ask is a form of trolling. Do you speak the way you type? Do you really come at your friends the same way you come at people on CC? Do people respond well to you when you do it? You're a troll, a constant troll, and that is why people respond to you the way they do.

patches70 wrote:Extralegal just means doing something outside the scope of law. If something is against the law and you do it, it is not "extralegal", it is just plain illegal.
Extralegal is like the bombing of US citizens on foreign soil using drone warfare. The legality of it hasn't really been taken up by the courts except by secret courts and that sure as shit doesn't count because no other courts can use the secret courts' decisions as precedent or make rulings based on the secret court rulings, thus the extralegality. The torturing of prisoners held by US forces on foreign territory was extralegal and still might be. I can't recall exactly, but I thought Congress passed a law about torturing at Black Sites but I dunno. The CIA tortures people in a prison in Saudi Arabia and they won't be charged with any US laws, because there are no laws dealing with that. Or have Saudi's torture prisoners for them, no US law can touch them, thus extralegal. Yada yada yada.

You can also use extralegal in an instance where someone does something and someone else says "Hey! You can't do that, the law doesn't say you can do that!" and the reply being "Well, the law doesn't say I can't do it either", thus extralegal.
New designer drugs come out all the time. They aren't included on the schedule of drugs list and thus can be "legally" sold. Not because they are legal but because they are extralegal, that the law hasn't caught up to decide on the issue.
Extralegal can also apply to vague laws. For instance, cruel or inhumane treatment of prisoners is generally illegal but rarely defined. Thus, you get the arguments such as "waterboarding isn't torture" until someone law is specifically written stating that waterboarding is torture. Until that happens it's extralegal. It's a gray area so to speak.

I think what Duk is saying is that he doesn't mind the extralegal torturing of certain individuals who carry out terrible crimes. Not for information I read but for the purposes of punishment. Simple executing them not being good enough, or so I take it from Duk's post.
For example, had the Nice killer been captured alive he'd have zero problem with the prisoner transferred to American custody, have him flown out to the middle of Iraq at a secret CIA black site and tortured to death. Have the dead body delivered back to France to have everyone spit on it or something.
If someone in France brings up the issue "Uhh, the death penalty is illegal not to mention torture is illegal under French law" the authorities can claim "sure, but we didn't torture him and we didn't execute him". Thus, extralegal.

Just to be clear, that's the second of the two definitions you posted, rather than the first. Dukasaur, in this case, would be arguing for such torture being brought within the scope of law, rather than established illegal tortures being made legal?

I kind of read his post the other way. That he wanted illegal tortures to become legalised punishments.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, though.

Serbia wrote:None of them are my definitions - are you once again confusing authors? You are making a habit of that lately, to bad results on your part.

And I'm not doing shit for you. You tell me, which of those three definitions are contradictory? Anything short of that will earn you another dismissive "shut the fuck up". All you do is troll. Every fucking question you ask is a form of trolling. Do you speak the way you type? Do you really come at your friends the same way you come at people on CC? Do people respond well to you when you do it? You're a troll, a constant troll, and that is why people respond to you the way they do.

Dude, calm down. You posted a bunch of contradictory definitions, and you apparently disagree with all of them. I kind of assumed that you agreed with at least one of them, given that you're whole thing here is your weird tantrum about trolling.

I don't particularly like your bizarre threats, but to answer your question, look at the two differing definitions provided by patches.

Feel free to come back when you've let off a bit of steam.